ML20010C529

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Emergency Planning Contention 2 (Aamodt Contention 5 Re Livestock)

ML20010C529
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	08/13/1981
From:	Aamodt M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
Shared Package
ML20010C530	List: ML20010C529 ML20010C535
References
NUDOCS 8108200167
Download: ML20010C529 (22)

Text

'

x-

[*

E -~ v. .

AAM - 8/13/81 p CC Z ET NU!a3~2 g g L

..FROD. & UTIL FAC.. ....._,,,

L u.=

[(-

/

\ , = < 1hh.

f ,

. X/\'

ls\ l fN~ ' -

9, .

8; pGg9 '  :-

k sk ~9

,/ .

L/

Intervenor Aamodt Findings of Fact on Emergency Planning' Contention 2 f.

(Aamodt Contention 5 - I.ivestock) \

s

'[.}x-4 w

,-i m

v;:  : mai 1 \e.n r.

",. .:. . 7 % l

.f -N - [ *. O - ~l

\ -

O p503 S

l{

e

~

8108200167 810813 ' -

PDR ADOCK 05000289 '

O PDR.

. 1 ,* , *-

Table of- Contents Totic Finding Page Contention -......................... 1 1 Adoption of Other Findings. . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Agricul.turalrCharacteri sti cs. . . . . . . . . 3-7 1-2 Inadequacy of.0bjective of Commonwealth

. and licensee Plan for Agriculture.. . 8-10 2-3 Phnitis.yith:llan 's Protectiver0ptions f o r Fa rm e r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11- 14 3 Evacuation of livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-21 5-7 Shelterint, of Livestock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-27 7 Effect of Sheltering on livestock. . . . 28-44' 8-12 Effect of Sheltering on ' Farmer. . . . . . . 4 5-59 12-17 Effect on Attitude of Farmers. . . . . . . . 60-63 17-18 Conclusions of law....................-1-5 18-19 4

b e

- w

l.-

1. Contention EP - 2 states:- It is contended that present evacuation plans do not provide for care and/or relocation of livestock. It is further contended that such provision should be'made before restart of TMI-1.

2. The Aamodts adopt, in general, the findings of Angry and Newberry Township that relate to their contention.

The following findings are to supplement and emphasize.

3 The Commonwealth, and licensee, recognized the unique problems of the agricultural community in event of an accident at TMI-1. The Commonwealth and the counties plans -

have each included special planning:Ifar farmers, however no6he,r Commonwealth, licensee or counties have devised plans that meet NRC criteria of adequacy and implementability.

4. Noone, the Commonwealth, county agents or licensee, knows the number of farms, farmers and livestock that are effected by the emergency plans, or those ferms :which 1fe. /ithini NRC 10 mile evacuation zone and the 50 mile ingestion zone.1 Tr. 20, 404 (Fouse); Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243 at 2, 2.

Commonwealth figures on agriculture are reported by counties.

5. The CommoMw'ealt'h's figures for the five counties .-

~

surr'o'u'nding TMI-1 give so'me "close ep.proximation of the numberd 1 of livestock in the 50 mile EPZ. However, other counties, including Chester and Berks, are within the 50 mile EPZ and highly agricultural.

The Commonwealth stated that they did not have this information in discovery. The Board denied a later motion to obtain this information. (April 28, orally). , ,

e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ ^ - -

. ' -2

.. lt' .

6. The livestock population in the 50 mile EPZ is sizeable. Just' considering the five counties, there are over 800',000 farm animals, not' counting horses. There is a.large-horse population on equine farms as well as at the Penn National Race Track. Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243 at 14 2,

~

7. The evaluation of these animals is important in .,

emergency planning because of the effect on their keepers' choices of their own protective actions. Com=onwealth Ex. 2, ff. 20,400 at 17. The Commonwealth figures appear lower than current market value,and do not take into account exceptional animals' however the total for the farm animals (not horses and other than the five counties) is over 225 million dollars.

This investment 10 held by about 2000 farmers, averaging over

$100,000 investment. Stewart and S=ith, ff. 20243 at 14.

8. The Commonwealth is interested in protecting the farm animals, particularly the dairy cows,by sheltering from radiation, so that the food supply is protected. Commonwealth Ex. 2a, ff. 20,400 at 1 - 38. The Department of Agriculture is to interface withithe agricultural co=munity to minimize expcsure of food and livestock. Id., at 8. The farmer is to be given recommendations for sheltering livestock from radiation.

Id., Annex B.

9. The welfare of the farmer, both economic and physical, is not considered in the Commonwealth's plan. In order to shelter animals the Commonwealth proposes extensive renovations of farm ouildings and recommends a number of measures which will necessarily expose the farmer to high 1.evels of radiation,in 2

Numbering of pages of County Agents Testimony should begin at 1 for the Summary and end at 14.

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ ~

)~ -

e the event of an accident'at~Tb'.I-1.

10. At the same time, the food chain is not being adec.uately protected. Although the public reluctant to accept any food ~ that has been subjected to radiation, the Commonwealth-has plans to introduce radiated products into the food chain.

Id., at 22. Contaminated milk- may be directet tto- animal feed, used in processed dairy products or diluted with uncontaminated suppli e s .* Id. ; Tr. 20253, 20236-7 (Stewart); Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243 at 4. There is no plan to test forage, the most common food of other than dairy animals and no plans to test meat products. Corbin, ff. 20286 atl. The sampling points for milk testing may,either through sheltering of animals and feed, or through a narrow configuration of a plume, not be 16 .

representative of the foed supply in general. Tr.20405-(Fouse) .

In addition, individual situations such as a farm family with grazing cows and other animals, drinking fresh milk and eating from a single food supply, could be subjected to hazardous radiation undetected by the program. Tr. 204405 - 16 (Fouse).

11. The plan discusses very briefly protective actions available to the farmer, himself. 06mmonwealth Ex. 2, ff. 20,400 at 15, 16. One, thyroid prophylaxis, will not be i provided to the farmer. Another, sheltering of the farmer, is impossible for the farmer in view of the number of duties to care for animals,which are creased in an emergency. A third is evacuation of the farmer and abandonment of the livestock, which is unthinkable to most farmers. Tr.18,691 (Lytle) ;

j Tr.19,769 - 70, 75 -6 (Samples). The plan recognizes that

none of these is.a viable option for the farmer. It concludes

• This latter option may have been rejected during the hearing.

l L

r- -

by suggesting that the far=er keep in touch with the county agricultural agent and county emergency management officer so the farmer can obtain advise and assistance. Id., at 17.

12. Communicating with the county agent or canace=ent officer is clearly not a reasenhble option. The latter perscr.s in Dauphin and York Counties show no expertise in agriculture within their credentials. The plan neglects to name the means of co==unication, since general instructions (county) curtail telephone use. Commonwealth Ex. 4, 5, 7,'ff. 18073, 18074, 19683 Lines are expected to be jammed anyway, and it is r.~ -

unlikely that a farmer in trouble would make.a choice toiseek advise that would be delaying and not clearly helpful. (Two thousand calls from the two thousand farms in the five county area would clearly swamp five agricultural agents, including assistants.)

13. Further, the county agents had not received any training in radiation detection or protection since the 1960s.

One did not know how to use a dosimeter; the other would not recognize radiation sickness. One agent did not interpret his job as providing emergency workers as suggested in the event of prolonged radistion and cumulative exposure of the farmer.

i Van Euskirk and Cable, ff. 18296 at 2; Stewart and Smith, ff. l 20243 at 3. In fact, the agent felt his responsibility was rimply to advise the farmers to stay or leave. Tr. 20,236 (Stewart). The agents both expressed concern for their own safety, one stating that he would remain as long as he and his family was safe. Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243 at 2, P.

9

- ^ - - - - - - - _ - - - ~ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5 14 . . Although the Co=monwealth is directing the- farmers to the County agents, the agents do not appear on the Lepartment-of Agricultural organizational chart. In fact, the agents are federal employees. The Commonwealth witnesses who were making this suggestion had no acquaintaince with the local agents,

nor had they consultedithe=, Tr.18321 (Van Buskirk, Cable) .

The Board was concerned about the alleged interface between the Commonwealth and the farmers.

15. The option of evacuation of livestock, and therefore the farmer, is discussed, and rejected because of several spurious arguments. The first is that cattle trucks on the roadways would be disruptive. Commonwealth Ex. 2, ff. 20400 at 17.

a count of Without/the numbers of cattle intthe 10 mile EPZ, and study of the impact on traffic, this is simply an opinion no'tcatreason. :r. .

The testimony has been that planning has opened roadways for evacuation.. Trucks are noted for moving along.

16. The second argument against evacuation of cattle is clearly spurious. The plan states that the stress of, moving and exposure to disease would present a great risk to animals, acre than exposures to high level radiation. The rangele of cited as to evacuation exposures which are(preferable /are in- the -range of 250 to 400 Rems.

That dickness and death from hi6 h level radiation can occur 1-n-ant =als

- .. ,___-u,__,__

as well as genetic damage is ignored.- Accentuated is the minimal risk from shipping fever which can be prevented by medication.

Also accentuated are the few and unusual isolated.:

occurrences of disease. The R.erds of Pennsylvania are exceptionally clean and healthy and a single case of brucellosis or pseudorabies is ac ticed and quickly quarantined.

Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243, at 5, 9.

6 -

I

. . . e

17. Then the plan refutes its own arguments against the safety of evacuation of cattle by stating that evacuation of valuable animals is expected. Certainly the poore choice would not be made for the best animals. Commenwcalth Ex. 2, ff. 20400 at 18.

18. However, the Commonwealth plans to give no assistance to these farmers who insist on evacuating their livestock; the Director of the department of ani=al husbandry and other personnel did notihterest in availability of cattle haulers or relocation sites. Van Buskirk and Cable, ff. 18296, at 2.

The farmer must make his own arrange =entsl however without coordination, the farmers may be contesting for the same trucks.3 They appear to depend on the truckers at the lancaster Stockyards.

Tr. 20234 (Stewart) ; Tr. 20241 (S=ith); Tr. 18727 (lytle) .

19. The animal husbandry personnel indicated that they may impose some instrictions to any cattle movement. Farmers may not be permitted to move livestock until rac . tion doses are considered hazardous to livestock. Since the plan considers doses cf 400 Rem tolerable to horses and 250 Rem to cattle, and these doses far exceed tolerable doses to can,_ movement of cattle at such a time would be impossible.

20. Farmers would also have to prove that their animals were free of diseasc. The animals husbandry personnel indicated that the farmer would have to go through channels in the state d e par tm ent, without clearly outlining those channels.4 Tr. 18311 (Van Buskirk) .

3 Dauphin County planned at one time to evacuate cattle in an The to move emerhency.

of t elivestockinthe10mileEPZ.locatedtruckswithinthecountk* Thie page noattached)3/4 longer exists in that county's plan.

4They fai. led to note that the county agents have this inf'ormation.

Stewart and Smith, ff. 18749 at 5.

1

]

21. The area of freedom of choice of the farmer to take his own protective actions needs to be clarified, as well as coordination of various options. The Corconwealth testified that advanced preparations were indicated t. ~otect the farmer, however they failed to demonstrate any advancement.

Tr. 18332 (Cab,le).

22. Having inadequately and inappropriately considered the evacuation option, the Commonwealth recommends sheltering of livestock against radiation. The Co==onwealth uses recommend-ations developed in the 1950s in response to threat of nuclear war. These federal guidelines were adopted without consultation with county agents, farmers or veterinarians in the area.

The guidelines are not responsive to fa.rming in the 1980s or TMI-1 area.

23. The county agents have had copies of the federal guidlelines for sheltering cattle in their Handbooks f6r :over twenty years, however they did not know whether any farmers had implemented the guidelines. Tr. 20269-70 (Stewart).

The agents apparently did not take this federal disaster plan seriously. An essential element of the plan is s ' age of water in 55 gallon drums, however the agents had no idea of the availability of drums.5 Stewart and Smith, ff.18749 at 4.

24. The Coatonwealth's Department of Anital Husbandry witnesses apparently were also unacquainted with the availability of a supply of clean drums. However, more distressing was their extreme lack of knowledge or inquisitiveness relative to the specific attributes of local agriculture. They did not know what kinds of housing of animals wem used or whether the f, arming .

operations were primarily beef or dairy. They had to statistics

6 or overview of agriculture's response to the TMI-2 accident.

Tr.18308-10,18329-30. (Cable, Van Euskirk) ; also Tr. 18336-7.

25. Although these witnesses were supporting the Commonwealth's reco=mendations for protecting cattle from radiation, they lacked knowledge in basic areas of radiation protection. They did no t know the shielding factors of various structures, a basic element of the Com=onwealth's plan.

Tr. 18330 (Cable).

26. These witnesses were acquainted with the plan in general and admitted that it is "likely that animals could not be sheltered. Tr. 18329 (Van Euskirk). They admitted that water storage was also a short-coming of the plan, in terms of getting the water to the animals. They felt that the water would be spilled and unavailable to the' animals in a snori time. Tr. 18326 b'an Euskirk) . .-

27. Thessowitnesseshpromised that ifrthe:. farmer wants to evacuate because of hazard to his health, assistance can be arranged in caring ;!or that farmer's livestock. The witnesses had not decided how many emergency workers might be needed or where they would be obtained. Van Euskirk and Cable, ff. 18296 at 2; Tr. 18304, 8 (Cable).5

28. Dr. Robert Weber, a veterinarian for the past 33 years to the herds west of TV.I, stated that the Commonwealth 's plan is inadequate to protect the health and safety of the livestock and their caretakers. Dr. Weber stated that the farms should' be closed if the plant should reopen without the development of en adequate plan. Lytle, et.'a1., ff. 18749 at 4; Tr. 18772, 18786 (Weber). ,

5"It is surp sing. that such an offer would be cada/so lightly in view of the expertise accustomed needed to handle animals, particularly ones un-to the handler. Tr.18725 (V. Fisher'.

c -

. 9 .

29. . Dr. Lawrence Samples, a large anical veterinarian practicing generally on the east side of the river, also

~found the Commonwealth's lan inadequate. Dr. Samples was not requested by the Cocconwealth to help in developing a plan or commenting on the plan, although he is a member of the Radiation Trotection Emergency Management Co=mittee,ca s,tatea; _

ebecItteenforied.af ter . the TMI-2 accident. Dr. Samples is a member of the Pennsylvania Veterinarian Eedicine Association as well as a number of other organizations including a committee to advise state legislature relative to livestock problems.

Tr.18755 - 19776 (Samples).

30. The Commonwealth's plan for sheltering livestock is essentially fourfold: providing housing; restricting ventilation, using stored feed and providing uncontaminated water. Some of the problems involved in providing this kind of shelter are generic and others are specific to TEI-l' area.

31. Most farmers in the TEI-1 area do not have sufficient '

barn space to shelter their animals. Most dairy farms have open housing and lots for dairy cattle. Many farmers have gone 'to open housing or no housing for beef cattle. Some have three-sided structures and can only get cattle under a roof at most (and at the cattles' inclination). Tr.17765-7 (Samples) .

32. Mr. Faul Lytle, a dairy f armer for 30 years tilling.

e 500 acresethree miles north of TMI-1, can not provide housing for his 200 dairy cows and heifers.- The barns are not closed, so that he cannot confine the cows within the barns. Mr. Lytle considers his operation typical of the farms in his area.: .

Tr. 1870s,.18695 (Lytle). -

9

gr- -

1 10 P

.... ~  : .

33~, . . The l plan suggests -that the farmers remodel their barns either on a ' temporary or percanent basis 'to increase

'6 shielding. 'It suggests raising window-sil1 heights, filling cores of concrete block buildings with sand or. gravel, or.

placing earth, hay, sacked feed or fertilizer, or concrete.

~ blocks over an'd around barns. It cautions to hire a contractor if additional bracing is needed to keep buildings from collapsing.

Commonwealth Ex. 2, ff. EC400 at Annex 3,5,6.In addition to-the financial and technical difficulties of this plan, the acceptability of' unsightly renovations.is unthinkable in view of the general beauty of the area.

34. The suggestion that the cost valuable . animals be sheltered is unworkable, since open housing precludes doors or stall openings which could be gated. The plan suggests that the farmer build a hay or straw wall to retain the cattle, a preposterous suggestion in terms of labor and permanence.

' tr.18738 (lytle) .

35 Mr. Lytle testified that he does not axpect to remodel his barns; he cannot afford to build or remodel to provide shelter for all his animals. Tr.18694,18726 (lytle) . Mr. lytle found' the use of hay and other materials to create temporary shielding unworkable. Tr.18738 (lytle) .

36. The plan also suggests that animals be herded into woods or under highway overpasses, however not taken into account is the.nced for fencing to retain the animals. These fences

.would need to be particularly sturdy since animals do not readily-adapt to-change, particularly that of confinement. Co==onwealth Ex.12, ff. 20400, Annex 3 at 14. - .

5 The plan's rating of shielding of types of shelters appears to ,

/

11 3.. .,

37. Water must also.be shielded. Since some farms draw water from~open-supplies, they are advised to store water in 55 -gallon drums to provide a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> supply.

~

38. - If farmers sere-to implement this plan for water storage, a considerable number of drums would be needed. For instance, Mr. Lytle, who draws his water from the municipal supply,would need about 75 drums - to supply his 200 animals for two days, according to the water requiree.ents set forth in the plan. There is no indication

~

from the Commonwealth of the availability or cost of drums.

Id., at 10, 16, 20 and 22.

39. Dr. Samples considered this recommendation too foolish to discuss seriously. He wondered-how the cows would open the tightly-covered drums described in the plan.

Id.; Tr.18770 (Samples) . The animals would not ration the water as is presumed in the plan's calculations of adequate supply. Commonwealth's witnesses described other drawbacks.

Finding 26.

40. A primary ' actor in shielding is ventilation; the plan calls for reduced ventilation in the barns. However cattle develop respiratory problems in a few hcurs when ventilation is severely reduced; in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> they are sick and can die. Chickens die in several hours with inadequate in error. Free running and grazing animals are said to be shielded from 30% of the radiation dose, presumably by their coats. Since animals cannot'take off their coats, they eventually receive this dose as radiation shakes off onto.the ground or other cattle, so that these animals would receive a full dose. It should be noted that the particulate matter in the fur of the animal poses a threat to'the farmer.

Tr.- 18317 (Cable).

. - 12

-ventilation. Drs. Wsber and Sa=ples felt that the ventilation recommendations of the plan were not consistent with animal

~

healih. Tr.18786 (Weber); 17765, 67 (Samples) .

41. %P.humbef Tof the plahs!otherIrbcoche5dationsi are'-als63 hazardous-to the animals' health. The plan suggeste putting

- out twoI days feed at one time to the animals. Their is no be suggestion as to-how this would gationed over two days rather tnan. consumed at initial feeding. Cattle can die or bloat from having their rations suddenly doubled. Commonwealth Ex. 2, ff. 20400, Annex 3 at 12, 13.

42. The plan suggests that baby calves should- be put with ,

valuable lactating cows. It assu=es that a cow will allow an unfamiliar calf to nurse. Dr. Samples assured the Board that such is not the case, and-that a fcr=er who followed this advise' could expect injury or death to the calf. Id., at 13.

Tr. 18777 (Sample s) .

43. There is no evidence as to the condition of a cow who l'silabtating;but not emptied for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, howeve'r the concensus is that there would be problems. Tr.17768 (Samples). Mr lytle 's cows developed castitis af ter missing a single ailking, -

approximately 20% of the. herd being afflicted. Tr. 18691 (lytle).

Cows sometimes develop allergies through reasorbing their milk.

Tr. 17767 (Samples). Some may dry up permanently. Tt. 18712

( J . Fisher) . The Cocconwealth plan ignores these problems.

44. The recommendations of the plan, if followed, would seriously ' threaten the.. health and lives of the animals, adding to the injury from radiation exposure. l 1

y 13

45. The plan, in attempting to provide protective action for the livestock, increases- the hazards to. the health and asfety of.the farmer and his family. ~The range of times between onset of'an accident and the start of a major release is in the order.of one-half hour to several hours. In this short span, . the farm'er is to milk all of his cows, try to locate and place' baby calves with his cows, provide at least a 2 week supply of covered feed and water (the labor involved variing greatly according to season), arrange drums of water'torbe accessible to the anime.ls, fill between 20 and 75 dru=s .with .

water if needed, cover other feed and hay with canvas or plastic sheeting, put out feed, herd animals into shelters, construct fences or other barriers and arrange for the needs of his family. .

rF.ost: task's listed would.take longercthan the; time before a dajor release. Commonwealth Ex. 2., ff 20040 at 8, 12, 13

46. The plan indicates that an electrical generator should be located near the family shelter. Id . , at 13. 2.t do es spot. explain. how thistvil-1 pro,tect the farmer since he must travel between buildings to take advantage of the power.

47. The farmer is to exercise care in removing coverings of feed so that fallout does not contaminate the stack. No word about protecting the farmer. Id., at 12.

48. Although the Commonwealth is encouraging the farmer to greatly increase the hazards to hi e health and safety-in-order to protect the food supply, the Commonwealth does not plan to provide protective equipment to the farmer to reduce their risk. Tr.18320 (Van Buskirk) . ,

y _.

- 14 -

c l

49. Testimony of .the farmers, county agents and

~

veterinarians strongly indicated that they would be.un-willing to abandon their animals. Tr. 20253 (Smith);

Stewart and. Smith, ff. 20243 at 10; Tr.18691 (Lytle);

Tr.19769-70, 35-76 (Samples) .

50. A plan to have the farmers evacuate for part of the day and return to do chores is unrealistic in most cases.

hr. Lytle's cows require 16 man hours for milking. Tr. 18739 (lytle).

51. Licenhee hasitaken a position that livestock are property, end.therefore not the concern of the hearing.

Tr. 20333-4 (Zahler) .

52. The Board allowed cs a limited appearance exhibit a letter from the Humane Society of the United States which su;marices.the t'stimony e of the-farmers and agents that farmers do not consider their animals as impersonal ' property.

Tr. 20331-2 (Smith) .

Evacnation's,trategies'.that require abandonment of animals ignore the strong bond between- humans and animals. The -intensity of people 's responses to endangered animals can be so powerful as to prompt their refusal to evacuate their neighborhoods, or they jeopardice their own lives attempting to rescue animal diaster victims. Evacuation plans that require animals be abandoned =ay be disregarded or, even worse, may result in refusal of residents do themselves comply with orders to leave endangered communities.

Aamodt Ex. 6, ff. 20331, at 1, rejected. Although this exhibit is rejected, the words expressed in it can rely as fully on the testimony of the county agents, crete'rinarians and farmers referenced in Finding 49. .

. ~. 15

'53. . One farmer : testified =ost clearly concerning _the farmer's dileta. - Er. Jeremiah Fisher farms within three miles of TMI-1;-the towers'of the plant are' clearly visible from'his.

'f a rm . His_ family have lived and worked on;this farm for over.

200 years. Tr. 18698-(Ji Fisher). Mr. Fisher has farmed since his childhood,- helping his widowed mother; presently he tills 200 acres and dairies, owing about 77 head of cattle. Lytle, e t . al . , f f. 1874 9, at 2. Mr. Fisher has one son who was terrified by his father's daily forays back-to the farm after the family evacuated during the TEI-2 accident. His son's fears have interfered with his schooling and happiness. Mr. Fisher realizes that abandoning his cattle and farm could mean economic ruin and he has co= passion for his cattle, however he is aware that remaining on the farm during a crisis at TMI-1 would inflict mental cruelty on his son. Tr. 18702-3, 18711-2 (Fi sher) . The testimony of the far=ers, veterinarians and county agents consistently demonstrated this dilema, and the Board acknowledged the dileta. Ref. same as Finding 49; Tr. 18706 (Smith).

54. As expressed in Mr. Fisher's testimony, the fature*and also ditentiof the . farmers'.efinancial investment works /against the option of the farter to take protective action for hi self.

Short.of a total disaster, the farmers' investment is in greater jeopardy than other businesses and homeowners. He cannot leave it and 6xpecttto find it 6ndamaged after the all-clear is sounded.

The Commonwealth fails to recognize this difference in planning for farmers. Van Buskirk and Cable, ff. 18296 at 3.

f.

k, *

=

16 ~

55. The average invest =ent of ' the .farters is considerable as set forth in Finding'7. The average price of a Sood dairy cow is $1800 to $2000. Tr.18758 (Sa=ples) . Dairy farms average from 70 -to 75 head of lactating cows. Tr. 18757 (Samples).

Mr. lytle's .100 lactating cows are the results of. years of breeding management. Tr.18690 (Lytle) .

56. One of the greatest concerns with radiation exposure oof animals is genetic damage to breeding stock, however the plan does not consider the risk to this. investment and-the effect on the owners and caretakers option to take protective

~

action. These kinds of investments often exceed insurance their coverage, are not coverable for radiation damage,and/ values.are not totally financially based. Although FEMA recognized that the farmers' investments should be protec ted by insurance, they were not aware of any such coverage available or provided.

Tr. 19019 (Adler).

57. The Commonwealtn plan evaluates radiation hazards to cattle in terms of survival. It is unclear whether these figur.es are for survival of 50% of the herd for 30 days.

Commonwealth Ex. 2, ff. 20400 at 17, Annex 3 et 11, 21.

Tr. 18332 (Cable). The signifigance of the Commonwealth's particularly figures /for genetic protection is dubious,

58. Ih' hdditicho tDathe probleme that radiation: egposure cou1@

cause the numbers of small farms that depend on breeding stock, the Cormonwealth needs to consider the exceptional operations within the TMI-1 area. For instance, Hempt Farms at Mechhnicsburg is the largest standard bleed: g far= in the world. It. 18758 (Samples). A cow whose heifer calves are worth one-half a 4

. er, .

t ,

33_ .

million dollars (each)1ives in York County. Stewart and Smith, ff. 20243, at 4. The personnel employed at such operations share the responsibilities and- some of the same

' feelings tow'ard these a.M eals, and their options for' taking protective action 2ne . limited .by the lack of planning provided by the Commonwealth.

59. Mr. Lytle nad arranged to move his cattle during the- TMI-2 crisis, based on his experience from an earlier flood. Shipping charges cannot have compared with the flood osses incurred through the damage done to cows by missing.

a single milking. Mastitis and reduced production in the cows contributed to a 865,000 loss that took-three:. years to pay. Tr.18693 (Lytle) .

60. The 3oard indicated that individuals must let authorities know when plans are not adequate to protect their needs. Tr. 19353, paraphrasing of Smith (Brooks).

Set en witnescas, well-acquainted with agriculture in the TMI-1 area, testified that the Commonwealth and Licensee plan for farmers was unworkable. Yet, in the face of these testimonies, the state went ahead with plans to distribute fact sneets from the plan to the farmers. Tr. 20421-2 (Furrer).

61. Distribution of an inadequate plan to the farmers will not only provide them with erroneous information, it will also heighten Listrust of authorities. The worksheets; which are totally inapplicable, may make the farmers feel that there is no potential seriousness in an emergency tt TMI-1, furt ner impeding the farmers ' inclinations to plan.. .

. . 1g

62. One of the farmers who testified, Mr. Vance Fisher, is unlikely to follow any instructions or recozeendations in i

an en.ergency. Alt.2vugh he has farmed all of his life, he and other farmero in the area have experienced a number of unusual problems with their animals' health since 1975-6. They attribute these problems to TRI-1 and feel that the authorities, both public and private, have not responded honestly to their-problems. Mr. Fisher does not believe that any information that he wouldebe given in an emergency would necessarily be truthful. Tr.18734-5 ; 18739-41; 19,700-1; 18710 (V. Fisher) .

63. The Commonwealth's brochure stated that the safety of the public would be assured fromhanyvthreatsacaused by the operation of a nuclear power plant. Commonwealth Ex. 3, ff. 18206. This brochure diliberately misleads the farming community since the state continues to support this phamplet and at the same time is aware of the inadequacy of the plan for agriculture.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Commonwealth ' augf lic&nse.e.. plan. for sheltering livestock provides no assurance that animal health effects a attendant to radiation will be even minimally citigated.

Rather, the plan. recommends faulty livestock management

~

procedures which in themselves severely hazard the health of the livestock.

2. The Commonwealth and licensee plan, and the County plans, for the agricultural communities in the TMI-1 EPZ, in making provisions 'or pro'tection of the food chain, provide for livestock-sheltering and those procedures which put the farmer at unique risk relative to the non-farm population.

yg .

a. .

3 The Cotsonwealth.and' the licensee incorrectly regard livestock 'as i= personal property. They disregard the living and individual quality of the individna. anicils..and the farmers bond to these anicals through long association, as a'ttested by' the county agents and veterinarians. This error in judgement results: in the farmer being placed in a dilema regarding evacuation or recaing for which he has no viable option,and, therefore cannot be expected to cooperate in the imp]ementation of the emergency plans.

- 4, The Commonwealth and licensee plan lacks input from the agricultural community surrounding TMI-1.

5. The agricultural emergency pluns so far devised to provide for the care and/or relocation of livastock are grossly inadequate. TMI-1 may not restart until this inadequacy is resolved, with a coordinated plan developed which provides for protection of livestock without prejudie'el insult to mecbers of the farm cot = unity.

Respectfully submitted, 0

f.

Mar $f;2eM.Aamodt August 13, 1981 O

n o

, , _ - - . _m _ ,

Annex E Appendix 15 -

3 .

- AGP.ICULTUp.E- -

The following information pertains to the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the County /.griculture Extension Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture County emergency Botrd.

-A) The Penna. -Dept. of Agriculture will. he responsible for samp-ling activities to include the picking up and delivery of sacples to State laboratories and for the reporting of sample results to the County office. '

B) The county extension agent or his assistant will report to the County EOC when requested. -

C) There' are approxirately 300 fanns South of Peters Mt in the 20 mile zone.- All 300 raise'scihe type rf cops...

D) Anp'roximately '200' farcs have livestock. South of Peters Mt the nimbers include: ~ ~ ej.  :- g j Milk Cows....... 3,700 head '/

4 s..

Cal fs . . . . . . . . . . . 2,300 head o I- .

y 131981 > C i

. Seef cattle. . . . . 5,000 head . ::7 9 q - :c f Sheep.......,... 350 head -\ A gf

. . g\ -

Horses . . . . . . . . . . 1,500 (On farms)

>i 1 O '

E) There are approximately 100 farms involved with Poultry.

F) To move livestock from the 10 mile rene would involve the use of some 600 vehicles. There are enough transport units in the County to transport approx. 75% of livestock cn farms.

G) !!hile it veuld appear that actual mover.ent of livestock might not occur, the thougnt should always remain / Anicals would be moved to the Ucrthern section nf Dauphin County and into !!orthucberland CoJnty .if necesrary. It is known that scme farcers 1 ave in fact.

already made provisicns for housing of animals if the covement o of such should cccur...

H) The County /.gricultural Extension Agent will maintain appro-prf ate liaison with the USDA County Erergency Bcard. ,

I) Contacts include; John llarris 652-EaSO '<l 599-5769 H t -

Harold Stewr.rd 545-1589 '

A Sample copy of the Cauphin Ccunty Agriculture Energency informatien Survey rorn and USC3 Fec t Sh+r;tt @ 2.a- 'a O'"'- #-"" '--